theyeti

That's neither systematic nor proof. Developing countries tend to grow faster than developed countries. Witness Europe in the period following WWII, when most of its infrastructure had to be rebuilt. Even the Soviet Union had huge growth rates in its formative years. Perhaps a comparison across different types of developing countries today would be more fruitful? Most developing countries with little government are not nice places to live. The US during the industrial revolution wasn't exactly kind to most laborers either.

theyeti

lunachick

Hmmm, I could be wrong - but wasn't the Great Depression in part the result of near fiscal libertarian ideals? ie; Huge gaps between rich and poor with the middle class almost wiped out; elimination of minimum wage, laissez faire capitalism, trickle down theory, among others?

And Jerdog - could you elaborate, please?

meritocrat

What does fiscal policy have to do with minimum wage legislation?

Kat_Somm_Faen

Libertarianism only works in small nations/states and can only work in such a frawork. Period.

It can not work in a state with 280 million people. At least with a federal policy on stuff other than foreign policy.

E.G. Libertarian USA can only have a federal level government to represents us as the Queen represents the UK. And than the states where the municipalities would take the brunt of governing.

tribalbeeyatch

Fiscal: of or relating to financial matters. Note that she didn't say fiscal "policy" but rather fiscal ideals.

lunachick

I've heard many libertarians state that they would like to get rid of the minimum wage because it hampers businesses and makes them less competitive globally.

And fiscal - wages - ? Aren't they both about money?

theyeti

I don't think it's as simple as all that. Libertarians will blame it on state interference, whereas most others will blame it on either a lack of interference or incompetent interference. The full causes are many and varied, and not fully understood by anyone.

What is true is that depressions -- sometimes quite large ones -- were commonplace before the mid 20th century, before the government took an active role in regulating the money supply. There would be incredible boom years followed by hard depressions, and the cycle would keep repeating itself.

Since the advent of Keyneisian economics, the post WWII track record has validated the idea that government should control the money supply and take an active stance in fighting off recessionary trends. The libertarians in general are against any government interference with the economy, and the "true" libertarians want to return to the gold standard, where the government has no influence over the money supply. IMO, they can be faulted for being on the wrong side of history as far as that goes.

theyeti

Kinross

No the great depression was caused by tightened fiscal policy during a cyclic recession. A global recession occured and governments responded buy raising interest rates, enacting protectionist trade policies, and raising taxes. Hardly what would be called libertarian policy.

That is why you are seeing the US, Germany, France, Austrailia cut interest rate, lowering taxes and going into a defecit. To prevent another depression.

lunachick

I'd have to look further into the gold standard, but wouldn't the removal of government influence over money supply throw everything into an "anything can happen" situation - for good or bad? Libertarianism doesn't sound too stable to me, if that's the case.

(Not saying that things are particularly stable under Greenspan's "initiatives" from what I've been reading!)

Kinross

The government doesn't control money supply. In the US the federal reserve does. It is independent of the government and controlled by bankers.